This is my web log which contains all sorts of random thoughts I felt it necessary to record for posterity here. I've recorded ideas on all sorts of topics in here so I hope you find something interesting, and maybe even useful!
Cultural Relativism
2024-01-22. Philosophy. Rating 4. ID 2318.
Cultural Relativism is the doctrine that the merit and efficacy of a belief or tradition can only be evaluated in the context of that culture.
For example, we cannot say that democracy is the best form of government just because it has worked fairly well in the West, because there are countries where monarchy or even dictatorship might be more effective. And we cannot condemn some Islamic societies who force women into wearing traditional coverings, because every society has dress codes and who is to say which is right and wrong? And maybe traditional native customs of cannibalism and inter-tribal warfare are entirely reasonable within the context of the culture at the time, and judging those negatively isn't justified.
You might be surprised to learn that I partially agree. I don't believe in objective morality. In other words there are no absolute rights or wrongs. I don't entirely go along with utilitarianism either, in case you were wondering, because my thoughts on this are based around pragmatism.
So I don't think there is absolute right and wrong, but I do think some things are more right than others, and I think that, given a chance to offer an honest opinion, the vast majority of people would agree.
For example, if people were offered the opportunity to return to a traditional culture where warfare, slavery, and cannibalism existed, and if they gave an honest answer, as opposed to trying to justify that previous activity, they would choose modern society instead, which is relatively peaceful and has eliminated cannibalism and slavery.
So I would say that you could make a case to say that having no slavery is better than having slavery, although I could probably think of some situations where I could justify it. Slavery has been a feature of almost every society in the past, and it was primarily the British who helped eliminate it from "modern" societies.
Note that there is no fundamental objective principle or law which makes slavery undesirable; its rejection is simply an inevitable outcome of any person living in a cooperative community (that is, all of them) where relatively benevolent interaction with others is essential.
Also note that there will always be some who will not agree with the majority. Psychopaths and extremists exist in every society, and they might disagree, but I'm talking about the opinions which are relatively acceptable and widely held. And I know this is close to a "majority rules" situation, and there are well known problems with that, but what are the alternatives?
I guess we could have a technocratic society as advocated by Plato (if I remember correctly) where a group of "experts" (of course, in Plato's case, philosophers) ruled over the rest. Sounds great in theory, but should it be philosophers? What about political scientists, or sociologists, or management experts? Obviously, this rapidly descends into a nightmare situation!
So here in New Zealand we might be tempted to say that imposing Western values onto Maori cannot be justified, but ask Maori people, and those of them who give an honest answer (hopefully most of them, minus the radicals) would admit they would rather have an iPhone than a taiaha, they would rather live in peace than with the threat of invasion from the neighbouring tribe, and they would rather eat KFC (sorry about that stereotype) than cousin Rangi's head.
And I'm not so sure about the situation in Israel (since I don't live there) but I suspect if the people of Gaza could be separated from the hateful rhetoric of Hamas for long enough, they might admit that life under the Israeli government is far better than life under Hamas. Before the latest conflict, hundreds of thousands (again, if I remember correctly) of them crossed the border to work in Israel every day. How many Israelis did the opposite? That's right: none!
I think in both of these cases there is one culture which is greatly superior to the other, not by divine proclamation, or by some higher law, but by the fact that the vast majority of people, given a free choice and fair information, would choose one over the other.
The woke mob claiming all cultures are equal, or even that "primitive" cultures are superior, are really the cause of massive delusion and failure to progress for so many. Cultural relativism has some merit, but as is so often the case, it goes too far and is taken too seriously by people who have trouble thinking for themselves.
Before I move onto more mundane matters, I want to do one follow up from my previous post which posited that the universe might be a simulation. There are more reasons to think this idea has some merit beyond those I mentioned yesterday, and there is also an interesting corollary to this argument.
First, we have a big problem today explaining why and how the universe got started. If there was nothing before the Big Bang, then how could anything have happened? What was the cause? Where did the mass, energy, and even the basic laws of physics come from?
There are possible "conventional" explanations for this, which I have mentioned in past posts. For example, the universe could be just a small part of an infinite (in time and space) multiverse. The multiverse always existed so the mass, energy, and laws also existed. This is the classic multiverse theory, which has some support and tidily answers a few awkward questions.
Or maybe the universe expands like it is now, then contracts down to a point, and is "reborn" infinitely into the past and future. This is the old "oscillating universe" idea which has been around for many decades.
But another possible explanation is that the Big Bang represents the universe simulation being "booted". Maybe that's when the creator of the simulation started it. Maybe the real universe the creators live in has always existed and has no origin.
Another difficult question for cosmology today is the apparent fine tuning of various physical constants. If certain fundamental constants were just slightly different than they are then the universe as we know it couldn't exist, and no life would be possible.
By the way, here are the constants: the ratio of the strengths of gravity to that of electromagnetism, the strength of the force binding nucleons into nuclei, the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe, the cosmological constant, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, and the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime.
But if the universe is a simulation then the constants were purposefully chosen by the creator to get the type of universe we now have, and no further explanation is necessary.
There are many other aspects of out universe which might be construed as showing it is a simulation, but let's just summarise the reasons I have listed in these two posts. Our universe has pixels and a basic clock speed, similar to a computer, and it seems to have been started, and deliberately designed with particular parameters which favour the existence of life.
There are plenty of alternative, more conventional, explanations for all of this, of course, but the simulation hypothesis isn't totally crazy, is it?
Finally, I noticed as these posts went on that my argument sounded more and more like those I hear from religious people who prefer a theological explanation to a scientific one. Notice how often I used the word "create" (or creation, etc) above? Sounds like a religious argument, doesn't it?
There's an old joke that religious people only need three words to explain anything. Those words are "God did it". Maybe my idea is similar to this, except it is in a secular form which has no need for the supernatural. Maybe God actually did do it, except this god was more an incredibly advanced alien rather than a traditional supernatural entity.
In my defence, I did try to make my argument more scientific by making it falsifiable. There are particular attributes we would expect in a simulated universe (mainly those I listed in the previous post), and when we look, we might be seeing them (notice my caution here: this is obviously controversial).
This argument has the simplicity of a theological one without the need to invoke the supernatural. It's brilliant, I tell you! Also note that I am not totally convinced by my own points here. There are many problems, and many alternative ways to interpret the data, but it is kind of fun to speculate.
So it's time to reveal the "outrageous" theory I first mentioned last year.
In recent years the "Simulation Hypothesis" has received a lot of attention. Briefly, this is an argument by philosopher, Nick Bostrom, that any advanced civilisation will eventually reach a point where its computer technology can simulate a whole universe, and that it is natural for a civilisation of that type to want to do that. It seems likely that intelligent life, far older than humans and therefore more technologically advanced, exists somewhere, so we would expect that many simulations do exist, and maybe only one real universe. So why would we not accept that our universe is one of the simulations?
But how would we know? Well, if we do live in a simulation then we don't really know what a real universe would look like, but why would we not expect to see some elements typical of the much simpler simulations we are capable of now not to be reflected in the underlying details of the universe we do live in? Surely we should expect to see underlying principles and characteristics of our current simulations yet many orders of magnitude more advanced?
Well, that idea makes sense, and worryingly, that's exactly what we do see, at least in my humble opinion! Note that there are alternative explanations for this: maybe "real" universes also look like simulations to some extent, just because that's how the laws of the universe work, or maybe we are misinterpreting reality because of a predisposition to see things in a computational way which causes us to see these signs when they don't really exist. As an IT person, this last explanation makes sense in my case, but I still think believing the universe might be a simulation isn't totally crazy!
So here's my evidence: computer simulations work at fixed spatial and temporal resolutions, and they also tend to hide unnecessary details until they are needed, to simplify and speed up processing. If you know some physics you might see where this is going now. Note that Bostrom's original idea was based purely on philosophical reasoning, where mine is based on actual observation. When theory and observation support each other, we usually think we are onto something.
In physics, there are some fundamental constants which represent the ultimate limit on how finely time and space can be divided. The two I will concentrate on here are called the Planck Time, and the Planck Length, named after Max Planck, the legendary figure in the early development of Quantum Theory.
So the Planck Time is about 5x10^-44 seconds, and the Planck Length is about 2x10^-35 meters. Think of the length as being a "pixel" in the universe, and the time as being a clock cycle of the processor. Now, I have to admit, these numbers really are incredibly small; there are about 50 billion trillion trillion Planck lengths in a meter, for example. This might be beyond even the theoretical possibility af any computational machine, no matter how advanced, but those limitations apply here in our "simulated" universe and there might be none in the "real" universe. Maybe the real universe is truly analog, with none of the "quantum" (AKA computational or digital) limitations we have.
Another odd thing about the universe is how it changes based on if, and how, it is being "observed" (note the quotes there, because this isn't strictly observation in the common sense). This is incredibly obscure and specialised, but my understanding is that the wave function of a system only "collapses" and takes a fixed state, when it is observed.
Now, maybe I'm taking this too far, just to support my theory, but this sounds awfully like techniques used in simulation and game programming where details of an object are only calculated when they become visible to the experimenter or player (or observer in the case of the universe).
At this point you might be wondering am I serious, or is this some kind of joke; or am I someone with a naive understanding of quantum physics pushing my knowledge too far; or am I just totally crazy? Well, all of those are possible, but I am offering this as an idea worth of consideration. I don't take this stuff totally seriously, but if it is later shown that it is all true, then I claim to be a pioneer in the new science of "simulation cosmology". There, I have even gaven it a name. Alternatively, let's just call it the "OJB Hypothesis"!
I think I have identified the fundamental difference between what I broadly categorise as "good" and "bad" in this world. I should say that these classifications shouldn't be taken too literally: there is some good in every bad, and some bad in very good. Also, I am using the words good and bad here more as a statement on effectiveness, rationality, and truth, rather than a way to state what is virtuous or evil.
What is (arguably) the most important defining characteristic of science? It is testing, accepting when something doesn't work, and refining existing ideas or even starting again with something completely new where necessary. To put it simply: science tests and corrects errors. When an error is found in an existing theory that discovery isn't hidden, it is celebrated (at least in an ideal form of science). As I have said in the past, if anyone found that a theory like evolution couldn't be true, and provided an alternative, that would be worth a Nobel Prize for sure!
But in other areas of human activity this process doesn't happen. Politicians rarely objectively test the outcomes of their policies, because they might get a result they don't like. The arts are often not even about generating facts, so they have nothing to test. Many social "sciences" (I always use quotes in this situation, because I don't really believe they are sciences) do no testing and tend to create ideological pronouncements rather than testable facts. And is there even a need for me to mention religion here?
The most disturbing area, to me, where this lack of testing occurs is in philosophy. Now, I have to admit here that I have no formal training in philosophy, so if I have got this horribly wrong please say so in the comments, but it seems that most philosophy involves ideas based on pure thought, and no formal testing to see if the consequences of those ideas are apparent in the real world.
I should say here that not all areas of inquiry can be tested this way. For example, in the study of moral philosophy, it is hard to see how any testing could be done. You might evaluate the real world benefits of a moral model but by doing that you have almost already committed to one of them, consequentialism, so this might quite fairly be seen as invalid.
So I freely accept that not everything can be effectively tested, but maybe we should try to do it more. For example, in the social "sciences" make a prediction of what the consequences of an idea might be, then that should be tested. In politics, state what a positive outcome would be for a policy, and test it at a fixed time in the future and admit it is a failure if the objectives haven't been met.
I think this concept of testing could be applied a lot more than it is currently, and I think it might potentially produce better outcomes in many areas of modern society. After all, why shouldn't people need to defend their beliefs, especially when those beliefs have consequences for everyone, like in the area of politics or management?
Create a theory, test it, revise it, repeat. It's not a bad idea to arrive at the best outcomes, but it would require a change in mindset for some people: they woud need to want to get to the truth, instead of just sticking to their favourite pet ideology. It might be a big ask for some!
I listened to a podcast recently which tried to turn the anti-woke narrative around from what we usually hear. Those of us who campaign against irrational wokeness are often accused of being negative, and of criticising other people's ideas without having anything positive to contribute, so why not try to say what we do want, rather than what we don't?
OK, challenged accepted...
First, I am not a conservative, but I do think there are well-established traditions, institutions, and rules in society which are worth preserving, unless a very good reason can be shown for changing them. At the same time, nothing should be above criticism, or be ruled out as being a candidate for change.
That might not sound very helpful, because how do you know what is worth preserving and what isn't? But what I am saying is that people at the extremes: those who want to tear down the whole system, and those who want to preserve traditional values, no matter how inappropriate they are, are both wrong.
For example, capitalism has its issues, and we all should acknowledge that, but are the disadvantages outweighed by the advantages? Look at the attempts at alternative economic systems and there is a clear trend towards total failure. Anyone who says capitalism has to be thrown out is probably not very aware of how poor the alternatives are. I would suggest studying the real conditions in communist and extreme socialist states.
Second, I value the individual above the collective. In other words, I am not saying that we don't need to be cognisant of the needs of others or of society as a whole, but in the end, a person should be responsible for themselves, and seek to improve their own lives, within reason.
Note that I emphasised both sides of this phenomenon: making life better for yourself, but also accepting responsibility for yourself. The dangers of collectivism are just too great to ignore, and I think that might be the one aspect of woke culture which is the most harmful (and there are many candidates for that "honour").
Third, freedom is everything. Well, not everything, because there have to be limits to a person's freedom to act, but that should be minimised. The usual way of stating this is that I should have the freedom to do anything, as long as it doesn't disadvantage another person's natural rights.
And yes, I know that "natural rights" are both hard to define, and hard to justify as even existing (where do these rights come from?), but there are norms which are shared across many diverse societies. So we should have the right to be safe from physical harm from others, to maintain ownership of items which we fairly acquired, etc, but not the right to avoid having our ideas or speech criticised, or to force others to follow our political or philosophical beliefs.
Fourth, related to this is free speech. I don't condone free speech absolutism, but I do think we should maximise it. So everyone should have the right to say or publish whatever they want, as long as it doesn't incite immediate physical violence, or reveal any information which would normally be considered private.
For example, I can say I think Islam is a terrible religion, or even that Muslims are stupid, but I can't say let's go kill Muslims, or here is Mohammed's password, now go and hack his computer.
Additionally, any comment made on a public forum should be open to commentary and criticism. Anyone who makes a public comment should be prepared to defend it. I don't want to see stuff like I sometimes see on X (Twitter) where people make a controversial political statement and either limit who can reply or turn off comments completely. If you are confident enough in your statement to make it public, you should also be confident enough to defend it, otherwise just keep it to yourself!
Fifth, I think we need to be aspirational. I talked about this in some detail in a recent post titled "To Boldy Go". I think we have lost our confidence to a large extent, and have become inwards looking and defensive.
Sure, you can fight the "climate crisis" to a certain level, or protect the environment, or send money to the poor, but I would prefer to be working harder on technologies like nuclear fusion, which could potentially solve all of these problems at once.
A space program is possibly the most important thing we could have. When the catastrophic asteroid arrives (like it did 65 million years ago) what's the point of having a cooler climate, equity for everyone, and having everyone dancing around singing "Kumbaya" if we all die? Better to have some of us living on other planets; most will still die, but it's kind of nice to think the species might survive.
Sixth, stop being so tied up with identity politics. I don't care whether a new CEO is a woman or trans or black or all of the above, I just care what they think and what they do.
It's embarrassing for women (or should be) when they do something fairly mediocre yet it is celebrated like some sort of big deal. And it's embarrassing for black people (or again, should be) when they get into medical school with lower grades than others.
Surely the least racist person is one who doesn't even notice that race exists and treats everyone the same, whatever colour they are. And surely the least sexist person is one who accepts that men and women are both very capable, but with some differences in a complementary way. Can we just celebrate this instead of denying it?
Seventh, I don't want to be lead, so I don't need a leader! What possible use would I have for someone who thinks they can show or tell me what to do? I don't have leaders and I intensely distrust anyone who wants to lead.
When I see a person who is doing something outstanding, I might assimilate some of their ideas as my own, but it is unlikely for that person to be deliberately trying to lead. The best leaders are those who just do what is right, or best, and wait for others to appreciate that.
Finally, let's be practical, rational, and moderate. Anyone who follows an ideology, especially a pure or extreme one, is likely to be wrong a lot of the time. Anyone who follows the teachings of a book or other source, might get something from it, but might miss out on other valuable material.
If you label yourself with a title like "progressive" or "conservative" or "Christian" or whatever else, you are restricting yourself. No belief system is always right. A lot of what I believe in might be broadly though of as libertarian, but I don't use that label because it doesn't always fit, and there are aspect of conservatism, progressivism, and even socialism which I think sometimes are correct.
So there are my suggestions for making the world better. Maybe if I could sum everything up in a single sentence it would be this: think carefully before you act or speak, and think for yourself, instead of being told what to think.
There are a couple of nice maxims out there, which I sort of like. I mean, I don't think these prove anything, or are true in every case, or should be taken too seriously, but I think they serve as a useful starting point for thinking about the world, and the current state of things.
So here they are. First, "everything has a cost", and second "there are no solutions, just trade-offs".
So what do these mean and how are they relevant? Let's look at the first one: everything has a cost. I found this one interesting recently during New Zealand's general election. Many people were recommending voting on for a party based on how many "free" handouts they were offering.
But those free prescriptions, or free dental treatment, or increased benefits for the unemployed, or whatever else, weren't free at all, of course. All the government was doing was taking money off of some of us and giving it to others. This isn't generous and it isn't to be commended. It isn't necessarily to be condemned either, because sometimes that sort of thing is necessary, but we need to be aware that nothing is ever really free, and that everything has a cost.
That's the superficial, economic meaning of the phrase, but it goes deeper than that. Every decision we make in any realm has costs. I'm writing some software right now, and I want to have the graphics look as good as possible. But higher quality images are bigger and take longer to load, use more storage etc. There's a cost in using those better images.
I want to handle every situation the user of this software might come across, so I write extra code to handle unusual situations. But that makes the program bigger and more complex, and uses up time I might spend doing something else. In other projects I have spent a lot of time creating what I thought were really cool features that the user would find valuable. When I ask them about it, they say something like "we don't use that because we don't need it". All that extra coding had a cost, and not a single person ever got anything out of it!
Often the hidden costs are obviously completely ridiculous. I listen to a podcast recently, featuring Elon Musk, and he was talking about some of the regulations SpaceX had to abide by before launching rockets.
SpaceX had to calculate how likely it was that a rocket component dropped into the ocean near launch sites would hit a shark. The organisation involved wouldn't provide data for the incidence of sharks, because it might be used illegally by people hunting sharks for shark fins. They also wouldn't provide it to another section of the same organisation who might have been able to do the calculations because they didn't trust them. Then, once that was sorted, a different organisation demanded a similar thing for whales.
Just to move on to even greater heights of absurdity, yet another group was concerned that sonic booms from rockets might interrupt seals who were breeding in the area, despite the fact that rocket launches had been happening there for years and the seal population was very healthy. SpaceX had to strap headphones to a seal to see if it was stressed by these noises. This sounds so bizarre that you would suspect it was fake, but Musk assures us that this is real.
Some people don't attach much importance to space exploration, but I do. And if you don't you should be aware that similar bureaucracy has a massive hidden cost on other projects you might approve of, like building low-cost housing for the poor.
This regulations might exists for good reasons, and each one might have only a small effect, but after a large number of them are all put in the way of a significant project of any type, there is a massive cost to pay. Protecting sharks, whales, and seals from the tiny chance of harm from a rocket is not free.
The people who dream up the regulations, limitations, policies, rules, and laws, genuinely think they are doing the right thing (at least, I think they do in the majority of cases). And if you look at the benefits from their perspective maybe those restrictions are the right solution. But they either don't factor in the costs, or ignore them because they have no direct interest in them. If you were interested in preserving the shark population, why would you care about the extra costs and delays for a space program?
Those extra burdens placed on SpaceX seemed to be free; at least to the organisation enforcing them, but in the bigger picture they certainly weren't. Actually, this reminds me of another one of my favourite short pithy sayings: "nothing is too hard for the person who doens't have to do it themselves". In other words, it is very easy to create regulations intended to fix one issue when someone else has to figure out how to make them work.
And that brings me to the second, related phrase, "there are no solutions, just trade-offs". When trying to solve a problem, many people want to find a solution which is perfect. But perfection doens't exist. There are two negative consequences to this rule...
First, if a perfect solution isn't found, a good one might be rejected (in other words, "never let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of achieving the merely good" (this is a slight paraphrase of yet another one of my favourite sayings). The real world involves compromise, and another word for perfectionism might be fanaticism.
Second, it might be possible to achieve near perfection in one area, but only by ignoring severe negative effects in another. The shark example I gave above might be an illustration of this. The organisation protecting the sharks attained near perfection, even protecting them from the incredibly tiny chance of having a rocket fall on them, but that had major negative effects for the company launching the rockets.
A better approach would have been a trade-off, where far more probable negative effects of rocket launches could have been concentrated on, and the minuscule chance a shark would be harmed by one simply ignored.
Finally, I want to briefly discuss the most significant example of trade-offs which inspired this post: free speech. There are two extremes to this argument. One side says there should be major limitations on speech because some people are "harmed" by it. The other says almost anything goes, and all speech should be allowed except for direct calls for physical violence or exposing information that should reasonably be kept private.
I tend towards the second extreme, which I'm sure my readers know by now, but there is a degree of compromise involved there. I might say something that would offend a group of people involved with the topic under discussion. For example, I might say trans women (born men) shouldn't be allowed to compete in women's sport.
Many trans activists, and a proportion of the trans population, would be offended by that and demand that my speech should be silenced. I agree, there is a harm in it, because it upset someone, but remember "nothing is free" because that freedom of speech has some costs, but costs which we should be willing to bear. And because "there are no solutions, just trade-offs" we need to accept a compromise that offence is a necessary side effect of free speech. In fact, that offence is a healthy sign that speech really is free.
In general we need to "look at the big picture" (I'm full of catchphrases today), despite the fact that I don't like that phrase, because there is no "the" big picture, just "a" big picture, but we should still try. Every action has some negative consequences, nothing is free, and there are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I have always liked science fiction. That genre is often criticised because it doesn't concentrate on character development as much as others tend to do, but I don't see that as a weakness, because SF concentrates on something that I think is more important: ideas.
Famously, many technologies we have today were first discussed in science fiction. Maybe the most well known example is the geosynchronous satellite, which was included in the work of Arthur C Clarke before it was a reality. And many future technologies, which are technically possible but not currently feasible, like space elevators, are also in this category.
As well as potential future technology, science fiction is also good because it is inspirational. The stories often focus around moving forward, for example, in the famous Star Trek quote: "Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no man has gone before!"
Do we do anything boldly any more? Modern trends seem to be more inward looking. The debate over whether spending money on space technology and exploration is worthwhile has been around as long as space programs have, but the objections to inspirational exploration seems to have become more intense recently.
We are now being asked to concentrate on climate change rather than colonising Mars. OK, climate change is worth taking seriously, but is more about not doing things rather than doing them. We are told that colonising Mars is a waste of time and that saving Earth is far more important. There is even a Toyota advertisement based around this idea. And yes, it has very little to do with cars, and yes again, advertising used to be about excitement and innovation, now it's more often dreary virtue signalling.
What good is a planet Earth, a few degrees cooler than it might have been, when an asteroid arrives and destroys most of the life on the planet? Climate change will not, under any realistic conditions, eliminate human life or civilisation, but a genuine global disaster like an asteroid impact might.
But a disaster of that sort could be millions of years away, you might say, and you would be right. But it might also happen in ten years. We just won't know until the killer asteroid is just a few years away from collision with our planet.
But saving humanity from a major disaster like that isn't even the main reason we need a space program. We just need one because exploration and discovery is just what humans do, at least when we are at our best. If a civilisation isn't moving forward at its best pace it might as well be reverting to the Dark Ages.
The Dark Ages were primarily the result of religious dogma which repressed new discoveries, and today that same "religion" is politcal correctness, including climate hysteria, equity nonsense, and rejection of the value of science and technology.
We seem to celebrate mediocrity and failure now. The successful institutions of the past are denigrated as the patriarchy, toxic masculinity, and white supremacy. Our new heroes are failed minority groups and the allegedly underprivileged.
I'm currently reading some classic science fiction: you know, they type which celebrates the brilliant individual maverick who makes things happen, despite the pressures of political interference and the inanity of the masses, and it's hard not to recognise something which is relevant to our current era, despite the stories being written many decades in the past.
Political trends go through cycles, and there are already signs that the current ideology of woke-ism is in decline, but it has done a lot of damage, and it will be decades before its remnants are eradicated from some parts of society, such as universities.
We need a new Enlightenment, where we realise that the new "religion" is holding back progress just like conventional religion did during the Dark Ages. We need to celebrate genuine progress and value, instead of the fake versions of it we have now.
If progress comes from the patriarchy or white supremacy, or the Western hegemony, or whatever other nonsensical terms people create to disguise the essential vacuity of their beliefs, then maybe it's about time we celebrated those things instead of denigrating them.
I am tempted to offer a new revision of Godwin's Law. For those of you who might not have heard of it, it is this: "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%". My revision would be something like this: "as a woke person loses a debate online, the probability of an accusation against their opponent involving words like patriarchy, white supremacy, or homophobe (insert your "-phobe" of choice here) approaches 100%".
The biggest sign of a woke ideolog I have detected recently is the celebration of weakness, mediocrity, and alleged victimhood. This is exactly the attitude we should avoid. Feel free to criticise people like Elon Musk if there is a genuine reason to, but don't do it as a knee-jerk reaction just because he is successful. I disagree with some of what he says, but I also recognise he is one of the most important humans on the planet.
Musk is successful and important (the two don't always go together) because he is bold. He goes boldy into the future. He is driven and unafraid; just like Captain Kirk of the starship Enterprise. We need more boldness!
And, by the way, I know the quote, and the title of this post, contains a split infinitive, and should technically be "to go boldy", but in modern usage the classic version is considered correct, and I'm not going to change it!
I recently read an article about the nature of maths, and by extension reality itself, and it got surprisingly fractious given the actual apparently mundane nature of the subject.
It was about whether 2 + 2 equals 5 or not. Of course, our immediate reaction would be that simple addition problems like this only have one solution, and that the solution is obvious given that most people learned basic maths quite early in their education, but there is some unexpected subtlety here, so let's have a look at it.
One reason for this particular statment being controversial is that it has been used for years as an example of misinformation and propaganda. It was notably used by both Dostoevsky and Orwell, who said that if the leaders of Nazi Germany had said 2 + 2 = 5, the people would have had to believe it, implying it is obviously false.
Additionally, it is used as a way to criticise the modern relativist and postmodernist views that maths is a matter of opinion or oppression, rather than anything with intrinsic truth, and that insisting that only one answer is possible subjugates alternative views.
So almost everyone would say that the equation in question is untrue, but let's look at a few examples of where it (and similar equations) might not be.
First, we need to define the symbols. In normal maths the symbol "+" means addition, and "=" means evaluate the preceding symbols to give a final answer. And "2" and "5" are symbols mapped to specific numbers (whatever numbers might be, because no one seems to know).
But in some representations, such as certain programming languages, the symbol "+" could mean something else, like concatenation, so "2 + 2" in this case would be equal to "22". Plus, some languages use "=" to mean test for equality rather than evaluate a statement, so "2 + 2" might evaluate to 4 but "4 = 5" would equate to false because 4 doesn't equal 5 (or does it?)
In fact, in certain programming languages, which don't have strong typing (meaning that when you store a value, which might be a number or a string of characters, it isn't enforced to be a certain, predictable type) it is easy to make an error that when you expect the answer 4 you might unexpectedly get "22" instead (note my use of quotes there: one way languages handle this problem). I don't know of any natural languages with this characteristic, but I'm not a linguist and maybe they exist.
So I might say that "2 + 2" evaluates to "22" or that "2 + 2 = 5" evaluates to false are correct answers under some circumstances.
But let's assume the symbols have all the usual meanings and see where else things might go wrong. In the real world many measurements have arbitrary precision. For example, if I measure the amount of coffee in my cup I might get 100 ml. But when I use a more accurate measure it might be closer to 99.1, or more accurately still 99.095781. In fact, there is no correct answer, unless I count the molecules (a bit impractical, and with many ancillary issues), so many answers are possible.
When measuring a continuous quantity, like volume, mass, length, etc we are always estimating, so multiple answers are all correct, or all incorrect, depending on your perspective.
And there's a corollary to this too. If we measure the volume of one cup of coffee and get 2.3 we might round that to the nearest whole number and say 2. Then we might ask, how much is in two cups that size? The answer is 5, because 2.3 x 2 is 4.6, which rounds to 5, not 4. So in that case 2 + 2 does equal 5.
Here'a another place where we might get unexpected results: modular or "clock" arithmetic. Imagine it is 22:00 (or 10 PM at night; I will use a 24 hour clock here for simplicity) and we ware going to take 3 hours to wrote a blog post. When will I finish? According to simple math the answer is 22 + 3 which is 25, but 25:00 isn't a time, because at 24 we revert back to 0. The real answer is 1:00, so in this case 22 + 3 = 1.
Here's another example. I'm flying my plane at a heading of 270 degrees (west) and I change my heading by 135 degrees. What angle am I flying at now? Well 270 + 135 is 405, but angles are usually only measured up to, but not including, 360. At 360 we go back to 0, so the real answer should be 45 degrees, or north-east.
Again, we can get anomalies like this in programming too. In many languages whole numbers (integers) are stored in a certain space and when the number is too big for this space and overflows it can give unexpected results, including adding 2 positive numbers giving a negative number. This is more of a bug than a feature though, so doesn't really fit in with my argument here of there being several *correct* answers.
In the original article there were several comments, some of which got quite heated and even threatened to stop reading the publication because it so obviously dealt in propaganda. But, of course, my comment was more reasonable and nuanced: aren't they always?
Here it is: "I think it is safe to say 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 given the usual assumptions about how the calculation is done. In general we would assume we are talking about normal integers without rounding, non-modular arithmetic, etc. If the usual assumptions aren't being made they should be stated."
In other words, we all know that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 5 given the usual way we treat those symbols and operations. If the person making the assertion that it is true is using some other, less standard, way to do the maths, then they should make that clear in the original statement of the problem.
For example, I could say that 22 + 3 equals 25, but 22:00 + 3 hours equals 1:00; or 270 + 135 = 405, but 270 degrees + 135 degrees equals 45 degrees.
In fact, when you look at almost any statement about anything, there are always assumptions inherent in any statment, no matter how truthful it might seem. If even maths can be subject to so many potential sources of confusion, then we would expect other, less rigorous, forms of expression might be subject to many more.
Always check the assumptions, definitions, and methodologies for any subject under discussion. Actually, that isn't really practical, or we would never be able to discuss anything in a reasonable time, but at least be aware of these issues.
Does 2 + 2 = 5? Well, it depends on a number of factors, but in general, using the assumptions most people agree on, and the usual interpretation of the question, the answer is no.
By the way, I wrote this post partly as the result of a criticism someone once made about me. A person told me that "you would argue about anything, even that 1 + 1 = 3". Well yes, I would. I chose a slightly different question here because of its historical significance, but I'll argue with anyone about anything, because certainty never really exists. On the other hand, to engage in the world in a practical way, we do have to make some assumptions about how we communicate.
We can't prove that facts exist, but we should act like they do, and that's a fact.
Different people have different political views, and that is often based on their underlying philosophy. Unfortunately, a significant number of people don't appear to follow this rule, and instead just have a political preference based on history, or what "tribe" they see themselves as belonging to.
I don't belong to any political party, and I have voted for many very different parties in the past, so when an election comes along (as is happening here in New Zealand in a few weeks time) there isn't necessarily an easy way to tell who I will vote for.
I recently asked one of my private clients who she might vote for, and she said she was a Labour supporter, so she would vote that way, and she was actually involved in helping that party leading up to the election. I told her that she is the type of person which causes the biggest problems in politics!
I said that because the whole concept behind democracy is that people should decide who best represents their values. The underlying ideology of political parties changes over time, and an individual's values also change, so it makes sense that the voter should change their decision over time. If they don't, they're probably not making the best decision, plus a party who knows they will get your vote doesn't need to do anything to earn it; they just have it as a matter of habit.
Now that might seem rather rude, because she is a paying client, and criticising her because of her politics is maybe not the kind of thing she would expect, but I tried to make it a fairly lighthearted comment. Also, I didn't criticise her because of who she was voting for; it was because she always voted that way no matter what which concerned me. I would be just as critical of someone who always voted National.
When she asked why I wasn't voting Labour this time, although I had in the past, I explained it was because of what Jacinda Ardern had done. She assumed I rejected Labour because Ardern had left, but of course it was the massive damage she did to our society while she was Labour leader that lead me to reject her party. But the fact that this person didn't even consider that possibility, and couldn't comprehend it even when I explained, shows how deep in the leftist echo chamber these people really are.
I value individuality highly, and find people who act based on their tribe extremely problematic. The tribal attitude so often comes from what is in the conventional media too. I often ask people "test questions" and am depressed by how often they just repeat a catchphrase currently popular in the media. Note that this sort of BS comes from all sides of politics, so it's not the leftist stuff being repeated in the media which bothers me, it's every mindless comment, which is clearly repeated parrot-like rather than reflecting any genuine original thought.
As I have explained in the past, one of the biggest issues I have with current woke ideology is the tribal collectivism it involves. According to them, I might have to do or say something to make someone else happy, even if I don't really believe in what I'm doing or saying. No, I won't do that. If my attitudes or comments upset someone else that is their problem, not mine. They should learn to accept that not everyone sees the world the same way they do.
I have a good working relationship with the client I mentioned above, and all my other clients as well, even though I know that many of them have very contrary political views to mine. Why would I be upset that someone disagrees with me? I would be far more worried if everyone did agree. That would indicate to me that people - maybe even including myself - really are becoming the victims of groupthink.
I think the main reason I have different political views than others is that I try to avoid tribalism. I don't trust the mainstream media to tell me what to think, although I do watch and listen to those sources, I also spend a similar amount of time at "alternative" media, and fact check anything I am suspicious of, which is a lot!
So, in recent times I have debated against people who don't think Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand, but also debated against the opposite side who think they are somehow special and deserve special privileges. And I have disputed opinions from people who think climate change is a hoax, but also criticised the other side who think it is an existential crisis we need to fix at any cost.
It seems to me that the people on the extremes on either side of both of those, and many other, subjects are the problem. I really don't think "climate deniers" are any worse than "climate alarmists" for example. They're both equally problematic.
One way I can tell someone is captured by an ideology is when their belief in distinct, unrelated subjects follow a trend. For example, if I find someone who wants trans women (who are really men) to be allowed into women's sport, and also think oil production should be stopped, I wonder how those two topics are linked, except they are both associated with leftist ideology.
By the way, I think trans women, in genuine cases, should be treated as their new gender except when it negatively affects others, and I think that oil production should continue while we develop alternatives. You can see why I argue with both sides on these issues. It's because I believe what I think is true, not what someone else has told me what I should think.
Sometimes this extreme individualism becomes difficult. For example, I find it quite awkward to admit I quite like Donald Trump, and would genuinely consider voting for him if I was American. At the same time, I recognise his personality is problematic and likely to cause division, which is why I would only consider him as an option, and would also look at the alternatives.
The worst thing I can ever imagine is finding that my beliefs align closely to a political party or ideology. Currently I consider myself closest to libertarianism as a political philosophy, but there are many aspects of this I disagree with, and in some areas prefer conservatism or socialism. So I will most likely vote Act, New Zealand's libertarian party (or the closest to one we have), at the upcoming election, although I am still considering other options as well: all of them unpopular to most of the people I associate with (I work at a university, which should tell you everything).
While it might sound like I am an obnoxious political extremist, based on some of what I have written here, that really isn't true. I rarely start political conversations, but if I get a chance to add to one that someone else has started I'm not afraid to contradict them, in a respectful way of course. And I never start debates on-line, I always wait for someone to say something stupid, then I go in to tell them why they're wrong!
I think far too many people are scared to be individuals - to be themselves. To me, that is the most important duty every reasonable person has. Don't be scared to say what you really think, but remember that contrary views are just that, just different opinions, not a threat to your existence! Treat your opponents with respect, and remember that the truth almost always lies somewhere between the extremes.
People are easily lead astray, misled, and misinformed. Even for someone who identifies as a skeptic, and makes a real effort to avoid being mislead, there is no guarantee that they won't make the occasional mistake and believe something they really shouldn't.
Some people believe "fake news" because it fits their political, religious, or philosophical preferences. For other people, they just believe what they are told, and might believe the complete opposite the next day.
As an example, a friend of mine has recently become interested in the Moon hoax. This is a conspiracy theory that the moon landings of the late 60s and 70s were all faked, and that humans have never actually visited the Moon.
Believers in this theory list a long list of what they consider "anomalies" in the Apollo missions which resulted in the first Moon landing, Apollo 11 in 1969, which was followed by several others: Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. You might remember that the Apollo 13 mission was aborted after a fault, and it took great skill by NASA engineers to save the crew.
This friend heard about the conspiracy from a presumably intelligent medical professional, and he was quite convinced at the time, but after listening to me dispute all the points the other person had made, and pointing out how various other facts make the hoax very unlikely, he was quite convinced by my points. However, he said that he might be convinced of the other side if he listened to the other person again.
At this point you might be thinking that I would think he's an idiot, because who would be so stupid that they would believe a crazy conspiracy like that, but that's not really the way I look at it. I encourage people to look at every side of a subject, and to consider all possibilities. I also maintain that we can never be completely sure that any theory about the real world is true; there is always room for doubt.
So, as I have said in past blog posts, if I am being more technically precise, I would say I believe something with a percentage certainty. For example, I might say I think there is a 95% chance that evolution is true, an 80% chance that the Big Bang is, a 50% chance that COVID came from a lab, etc. Note that when the certainty level gets into the 80s or 90s, I often say I believe that thing is true without quoting a number, but that is just a convenient shorthand for what I really think.
So I think there is about an 80% chance that the Moon landings really happened, and if you refer to the web page I have written on the subject, where I dismiss all the doubts of the conspiracy theorists, you will see why. The doubts people have generally are based on misunderstandings, lack of detailed knowledge, or just some sort of preference for bizarre theories. And the fact that the person my friend listened to is a medical professional doens't mean much, because people who are good at one thing very often make mistakes involving other fields.
Without getting into obscure technical details, here are a few simple points which should make a Moon hoax believer reconsider their beliefs...
First, why did the Americans build multiple Saturn V rockets, which many people saw launched, and one of which still exists because it was never used. These were by far the biggest flying machines ever built, and cost a huge amount. Why build them if they weren't needed for a real mission?
Second, what about the Moon rocks which were returned and distributed to many researchers around the world. None of those people suggested the rocks were fake; even those who might be tempted to minimise the achievements of the US.
Third, astronomers and other scientists have bounced lasers off the reflectors left on the Moon by these missions. It's possible they could have been placed by robotic missions, but is that theory likely?
Fourth, the photos and movies of events on the Moon, including the "Moon buggy" moving across the surface, could be faked fairly easily today, but the technology to do that at the time of the missions didn't exist, and creating the technology needed to make those movies could have cost as much as the actual mission!
But there are possible counters to all of these, which is why we should never assign certainty to the belief that the missions were real.
But getting back to the more general point of this post: listening to one side of a story is likely to be quite convincing to a lot of people. Anyone who wants to be properly informed should hear all possible perspectives, and decide on balance what they think is most likely.
And does that happen? Well no, it doesn't, because the major source of news for most people, the mainstream media, are notoriously biased. Many independent evaluations show the majority of media are strongly oriented to favouring left-wing political views, especially in relation to political correctness.
So when people are constantly exposed to one view only, they are likely to believe that view, just like my friend was persuaded by the Moon hoax conspiracy. Note that whether people believe something has little to do with whether it is true or not, it is primarily related to how often they hear the case supporting that view.
At the risk of being accused of succumbing to Godwin's Law, it's like the Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, said: "tell a lie often enough, at it becomes the truth" (that's a paraphrase of the actual words he used.)
I would like to see both sides of most stories being presented by the media. Maybe they could arrange a debate featuring people with different views on a subject, instead of just interviewing a person who presents just the side they favour.
But it's not that simple, unfortunately. There are some views which are less worthy than others. For example, if a scientist has discovered a new fossil which adds to our knowledge of human evolution, we shouldn't necessarily hear the views of a creationist as well, although hearing from them occasionally is entertaining.
So it's not easy, and I don't think there is a perfect answer, but I would like to see a bit more balance, a bit more debate, a bit more questioning of established beliefs.
Finally, here are a few situations where I would like to see "alternative" views presented more...
1. Climate change. I think climate change is real, and I think at least some of it is caused by human activities, but there is some reasonable cause for doubt, and at the very least, what the best way to deal with it is well worth debating. I would also like to see the legitimacy of phrases like "climate crisis" and "global boiling" debated in a reasonable way.
But the media only present one side; they never (or very rarely) feature any of the skeptics (and I don't mean deniers here); and they use phrases like "climate crisis" as if they actually meant something instead of simply being catch-phrases created by activists.
2. The origin of COVID. I am really stuck in the middle regarding whether the SARS-CoV-2 virus originated in that lab in Wuhan, or whether it was natural. When I hear either side being presented I find it quite convincing, just like my friend sees the Moon hoax.
But if I only listened to the mainstream media, I might not even know that the lab-leak theory existed, and I certainly wouldn't take it seriously.
3. Racial and cultural issues. This is the big one because of the current infatuation the media, and many politicians, have with race politics. I would like to hear all of the causes of inequities; whether they are unfairness in society, or cultural problems.
But the mainstream media would never even consider the possibility that some of the bad outcomes for minorities might relate to deficiencies in their culture, even though that is undoubtedly a factor. How much of a factor? Who knows, it's never even discussed.
So whether it's issues to do with COVID, or climate change, or racial equity, or the Moon landings, I think there is room for multiple views, and I would prefer to evaluate them myself, instead of the biased and corrupt media doing it for me.
According to Wikipedia, hysteria is "a term used colloquially to mean ungovernable emotional excess, and can refer to a temporary state of mind or emotion. In the nineteenth century, female hysteria was a commonly diagnosed physical illness in both men and women." Note that the etymology links it to women, the origin is the Greek word "hystera", meaning womb.
At this point you might already suspect that this post is heading into controversial territory, and you would be right! But read on, unless you are easily triggered by unpopular opinions, in which case, stop now!
There are two trends in modern society that I would like to discuss in this post. The first is the rise in the prominence of women, and the second is the increasing irrationality, emotionalism, and hysteria we see in many aspects of modern life. These two might not be connected, of course, but some people would suggest that they might be.
First, I have to say I fully support feminism as far as it exists to give women equality in society. But it has gone far beyond that now, because since equality has been achieved, the activists must now find other issues to occupy their time. This is the well-known "St George in Retirement" syndrome I have mentioned several times before, especially in a post, "St George in Retirement" from 2019-10-04.
This phenomenon isn't limited to feminists, of course. As society becomes more fair and egalitarian, many activist groups, including those advocating for allegedly disadvantaged races, genders, and religions have also succumbed to this.
I discussed what I think is the root cause of many of today's biggest problems in another post, "Postmodernist Insanity" from 2023-01-16, where I examined the negative influence of this corrupt philosophy. I must note here that, while that belief system (ironically) originated primarily with two "white guys", Derrida and Foucault in the 1960s, a lot of its development since then has been by female "philosophers". I put that word in quotes because I don't believe the intellectual rigour of their work really gives them the right to use the word unquoted!
So the problems of the world can be, to a significant degree, be blamed on women! Of course, this doens't mean every woman we might meet is to blame in any way, because most of them are very sensible. But that traditional female characteristics of emotionalism is very much a characteristic of many modern trends.
For example, we are asked to pay more attention to what people think they are rather than what they really are in debates around transgenderism. People born one sex who transition to another are not, in fact, that new sex. They might identify that way, and we should acknowledge that in most cases, but that doesn't make it a fact. I am particularly aware of this issue at this point of time because of the intense controversy around the activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull's disputed entry into the country. She is variously described as a women's rights or an anti-trans activist, depending on your perspective.
I have been defending her right to speak against some fairly aggressive opposition recently, because even though I really don't like her style, and some of her beliefs, I think she fundamentally has a point, at least to the extent that she deserves to have her perspective heard. If it is really as bad as some people say, then those who hear her will reject her ideas.
Here is a brief encounter on Twitter I can include, to give you an idea of the sort of vitriol the "kind" and "understanding" woke people espouse...
Me: We'll have to disagree on that. I think her basic message is good, but her style is often bad, and that's what I have said all along.
My opponent (known as "the lesbian project", which itself should ring alarm bells!): I just had a scroll through your follow list and yeah. you're scum. cya.
Me: OK, thanks for your comments anyway.
Notice how I maintained the high moral ground here, or was it passive aggressive? Either way, I enjoy maintaining a calm demeanour while my opposition rants and raves hysterically!
Here's a far more reasonable exchange, but one that reflects another strategy my opponents often use...
Me: You are very arrogant that you, as a male (I presume) think you can tell women how they feel about this issue. At the very least, can you not see that other opinions should be heard?
My opponent: The opinions of transphobic people don't matter to me.
Me: Well isn't that an easy answer. Anyone who disagrees with you gets that simplistic label. I think that's all we need to know about you then.
Maybe I was guilty of being a bit aggressive there myself, but this is the response many people like that have: just labelling anyone they disagree with by using a negative word, in this case "transphobic", but it could just as easily be "racist", "misogynistic", "Islamophobic", or one of many others. And, as his comment says, that means he doesn't need to repsond to what might easily be a very good point on their part.
So we are asked to identify trans people as what they think they are rather than what they really are (something I will actually do on a case by case basis). We are asked to check our privileges because some groups in society feel we have advantages which they can never quite justify rationally, but emotionally they think exist. We must take it seriously when a bunch of school kids go on "strike" with completely impractical demands around climate change (I think climate change exists; I just disagree with their approach to managing it).
Notice a trend here? People have changed from basing their beliefs, and subsequent actions, on rational thought to basing them on emotional reactions instead. And that is a traditionally female attribute. Women have higher "emotional intelligence" than men, on average, and this can be both a good and a bad thing.
At this point, if you are triggered by my "misogyny" then please refer to the warning at the beginning of this post!
Also, please note the words "on average" above. I totally understand that the overlap these attributes have in the male and female population is much bigger than the difference, but the effect still exists. Many males are as bad as females when it comes to hysteria, but there is a traditional association there, and I think it would be supported by statistics too. Maybe we should ask Jordan Peterson!
Note that in the exchanges above, my male opponent was relatively rational, but the female was both insulting and unreasonable... or should I say hysterical? I have noticed this as a trend in recent debates I have been involved with: women tend to base their ideas more on feelings and idealistic concepts rather than facts. Maybe its my own bias misidentifying this as a factor, but also maybe not.
So is this yet another misfortune modern feminism (again, I want to emphasise I fully support feminism aimed at equality and fairness, just not what that has now become) has inflicted on society? I guess so. I still believe the primary cause is the unjustified acceptance of applied postmodernism and critical theory as being relevant ways to view the world, but there is a clear interaction with feminism there as well.
Emotion is important, and anyone with good "emotional intelligence" (a term I don't like, by the way, because it dilutes the value of real intelligence) should make use of that in positive ways. But mindless hysteria isn't positive. It's the cause of many problems, not the solution.
OK everybody, pay attention! I think I have identified another reason why the state of our current world is not as good as it should be, and by that I mean pretty terrible. It involves the difference between theory and practice, and how the two are often not correlated.
Before I try to justify this view, let me give you one of my favourite quotes. It is this: "in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they are not".
In the more rational forms of human endeavour, we have mechanisms to keep these two branches of epistemic activity in sync with each other. In particular, in science the two are strongly connected, but each has limited value without the other. Sometimes theory might precede practice (or observation or experiment in scientific terminology) and in others a practical finding of some sort might come first.
For example, when it was observed that the universe was expanding, through measurements of redshift, a theory was required to say why, and the Big Bang naturally fit that observation. So a practical scientist, in this case an observer, Edwin Hubble, said this is what I see, and asked what theory might explain it.
In other situations, the theory comes first. The Higgs Boson was hypothesised many decades ago, but that theoretical prediction could not be taken too seriously until it was backed up by practical observation at the Large Hadron Collider, which has now happened.
So where rationality, and a genuine search for truth, is involved, in the most obvious case through science, a theory is of limited use until it is confirmed by practice. String Theory might be the best example of this currently, where the theory has looked great for decades now, but (as far as I am aware) it has never been supported by a single experiment or observation.
My point is, theory is often used as the basis for action without any real acknowledgement of whether it is valid in practice, and this is particularly obvious in some fields, especially politics and management. You didn't think I would write a blog post without taking the opportunity to criticise two of the most revolting forms of human activity, did you?
There are mechanisms in most organisations, and even in whole countries, to enable this feedback for allowing practice to guide theory, but they are usually either totally ineffective or are minimally effective.
The classic example in organisations is "consultation". But the fact is, whenever this word is mentioned most people just have a good laugh, because everyone knows it is completely disingenuous in most cases. Consultation is sought, for sure, because it is often an obligation, but it is very rarely acted on, or if it is, the need for compromise is often built in to the initial theoretical action which is diminished slightly as a result of consultation, but only to a level which was about what was being aimed at in the first place, before the initial plan was escalated.
And in the case of countries, the correction mechanism might involve the electability of a government which tries to implement overly theoretically (or ideologically in most cases in politics) policies. When that happens, a government too involved in ideology can be voted out. The practical effects of the theoretical policies are observed by the electorate, and acted on. But again, this is often limited, because a lot of damage can be done before an election is held, and certain ideologies have a habit of affecting multiple political parties at once, resulting in no real choice.
Of course, it usually becomes very apparent, very quickly, when a new policy, law, or reorganisation comes into effect and is counterproductive, but the people who support these actions very rarely acknowledge that there is a problem. After all, our "leaders" (I put that in quotes, because there is no way these people lead me in any way, and I suspect the same applies to many others) rely on a false narrative of competence to retain the illusion of leadership. When that deception fails they are exposed as being just as flawed as anyone else, in fact more so in most cases.
So to avoid the "emperor has no clothes" phenomenon it is important our leaders (I'll dispense with the quotes for now) don't admit to any major errors, even when these are readily apparent to everyone. It's a form of gaslighting really, where people think they see a flaw, but because it is never admitted to, they just assume they are missing something. Maybe that they aren't seeing "the big picture".
And that phrase "the big picture" is another sign that theory (or put less generously, ideology) has triumphed over practice (or put more generously, reality). When people make very reasonable objections to those big theoretical changes, they are often accused of not seeing the big picture. And there is some merit in that, because there often is a big picture, but if a positive big picture results in hundreds of bad small pictures, then maybe the big picture doesn't have the pre-eminence it might be initially given.
There's a very simple solution to all of these problems. Our leaders need a greater level of both humility and practicality. They need to admit that results at the small scale matter and that they might need to adjust their conceptual frameworks accordingly. They need to adjust their policies based on reasonable feedback, and to plan for gathering that evidence which might support or disprove their theoretical ideas.
For example, if we wanted to reorganise a country's health system to a more centralised one, we shouldn't just say it will result in efficiencies of scale and leave it at that. We should say that might happen, but against that is the result that systems will be managed at a level which is less aware of the requirements of individual communities, and that could easily lead to less efficiency.
At the very least any changes should be made at a scale which can be reversed if the actual outcomes aren't as positive as expected. So many small changes, each being monitored for improved outcomes, could be made, eventually leading to genuine improvements.
Notice that this process blends the preferences of conservatives to maintain things as they are, while allowing for the changes liberals often demand, so politically it might be a more sustainable strategy than having massive changes made by liberals followed by a period of fixing the inevitable negative consequences by conservatives.
I ask you, who could possibly deny that this is not a good idea? But will it ever happen? Well no, that is not likely, because the system we currently use to select leaders encourages people who are both ignorant and arrogant.
According to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, only people with lower levels of knowledge truly have the confidence to think they are right about anything. Anyone with greater knowledge usually understands how complex and nuanced the reality is, and would usually not make a good leader in the traditional sense (but I would say make a great leader in reality, assuming we even need leaders, which I deny)
So ignorance breeds arrogance, and that, in turn, creates more ignorance through failure to acknowledge alternative views or to even see that reality is far less simple and less certain than they choose to believe.
So I guess we had better get used to a constant stream of bad decisions being made by people completely unsuited to the task. Once you recognise this process, the problems with the world become very easy to understand. Easy to understand, but frustrating to live with!
Many people think the world is failing, especially the "developed, Western" countries, like most of Europe, the US, and other, similar nations. This failure is often ascribed to a lack of confidence in the systems which have lead to these countries becoming rich, safe, and technologically advanced.
Others might say that this progress has come at a price, and that price is often seen as environmental harm and exploitation of some groups in order to progress the society, mainly for the benefits of the "elite", which are usually seen as older white men (those of us who are stale, pale, and male).
Both sides of this story have some merit, but one has a lot more than the other, and I guess you know by now which side that is, at least in my opinion.
I think the progress the world has made in the last couple of hundred years is remarkable in many ways, and that progress is primarily because of the Western values of democracy, science, individual freedom, and free markets. Note that I am not saying there are any examples at all of perfect democracies, use of science, freedom, or markets, just that they are relatively advanced in many of the most successful countries.
The counter-narrative, that this apparent progress is due to systemic oppression and of environmental exploitation, is not completely false, but it is primarily untrue, and any factual basis which might have existed at some time has been warped beyond recognition.
There is no doubt that oppressive practices, like slavery, have been major drivers of economic and political success in the past, but that really is in the past, and the lack of slavery today, at least in the advanced countries I mentioned, is primarily due to those exact same country's policies.
And there are environmental issues, including climate change, which we should be aware of and make efforts to improve, but environmentalism itself is also primarily an invention of the advanced Western countries, and most pollution today exists in less developed nations.
So where does this pernicious attitude: that the Western world is corrupt and systemically racist, sexist, and exploitative (as well as many other criticisms, no doubt) come from?
Well, it seems that it might primarily come from applied postmodernist ideology, originally spread by academia, but now also common in education, corporations, and many branches of politics.
What is postmodernism? Well, it's hard to define (using convoluted and deliberately confusing terminology is an acknowledged aspect of it), and the latest, applied version of it is different in many ways to the original formulation of so-called intellectuals like Derrida and Foucault from the 1960s. But one of the main claims, which is particularly relevant to this post, is that knowledge is gained and maintained relative to a cultural framework, that all facts exist in this state, and that one framework of knowledge isn't better than any other.
From this we now have theories around racial dominance, gender suppression, trans and queer issues, and intersectionality.
Again, it is clear that, in the past, these things all really did exist, but the natural progress of society has eliminated them almost entirely, independently of the efforts of the postmodernist zealots. Now a person belonging to a previously disadvantaged group is just as likely to gain benefits from being in that group as suffering negative consequences.
Yet the postmodernists, and their modern descendants, don't seem to have noticed, and still demand that what they see as biased institutions should be reformed - or more ominously "deconstructed" (a nice way of saying destroyed) - even though they already have become egalitarian. Why?
It seems to be for the same reason that some religious people cling to ridiculous theological beliefs, that some people think the Earth is flat, and that some believe other conspiracy theories. That is, it has become like a religion (or worse: some similar new-age version of a religion). Many belief systems are like massive conspiracy theories where all evidence which contradicts the conspiracy is seen as part of it.
When fossils were first discovered, indicating the Earth was older than the 6000 years some people thought the Bible stated, they were seen by some as being left by the devil in order to deceive people. If fossils were real, why would the devil have needed to put them there? And the photos of the Earth, clearly showing it as a sphere, are part of a conspiracy by NASA to hide the flat Earth. If the Earth wasn't flat, why would NASA need to create these fake photos to prove it?
Any good conspiracy, or other irrational belief, has a mechanism within it to avoid it being diminished by facts. The ultimate expression of this is to make any evidence contrary to the ideology become supporting evidence instead, by portraying it as being a desperate and fake attempt to discredit the ideology, or of completely rejecting it by denigrating the underlying epistemological mechanisms used to create the contrary ideas.
This all sounds absurd, but ultimately it often is the mindset that many people in the world today base their beliefs on. And ultimately, that is the insanity which has taken over many parts of modern society, including some governments.
Modern postmodernism insists that science is part of the white men's system of oppression, used to maintain their power. So nothing scientific can be trusted and alternative systems of knowledge, such as mysticism and traditional beliefs, are at least as good, and probably better (because they haven't been used to establish and maintain the dominant Western culture).
So any science, or other evidence using Western logic and methodology which contradicts postmodernism is part of the conspiracy and can be used to support it instead. If a well designed social science study (assuming such a thing even exists) shows that postmodernist beliefs might not be true, that is used to show that they are, because why else would the patriarchy need to use its weapons of oppression, like science, against the new way of thinking?
Additionally, the opponents of this new theory, don't even require any actual action on the part of their enemies to arouse their opprobrium. In postmodernism, speech is seen as a major contributor to the problems they think exist. So speech is seen as a form of violence; a claim we often hear today, and suppression of free speech is a significant outcome, and maybe the most damaging aspect, of this new insanity.
My description above makes these ideas look absurd, and you might think I am exaggerating to support my argument, but this really is the way these people think.
In New Zealand recently we have had a classic example of this, where some educators wanted to introduce traditional Maori (the New Zealand native people) ideas into the science education. They want to have "Maori science" as part of the science curriculum, maybe even giving it equal status to "real science" and dedicating half of the course time to it.
But there is no Maori science, at least in any reasonable interpretation of the word. There is knowledge which Maori people had before the Europeans arrived, but that isn't science. And there is mysticism, but that also isn't science. Science is a methodology which originated primarily with the Greeks and became dominant at the Enlightenment, which (not coincidentally) also signalled the beginning of many modern trends towards better health, education, freedom, equality, and other positive outcomes.
In the incident I mentioned above, some real scientists objected to the idea of "polluting" science with unscientific beliefs, but they were attacked by members of the Royal Society here. It is shameful that an organisation which has supported science in the past, has become part of the anti-science hysteria taking over some parts of our culture.
And, of course, we also saw a manifestation of that ultimate tool commonly used by what I call the "woke mob": cancellation. Because anyone who dares to present anything which contradicts their beliefs is met with accusations of racism, or misogyny, or transphobia, or one of the other words which have become so overused that they have lost all meaning. A more reasonable approach would have been to engage in a fair debate and show why they thought the contrary ideas were wrong, but that is a very "Western" way of thinking, so can be safely rejected.
Here's another belief which is both absurd and, quite honestly, disgusting. These people say all white people are inherently racist. Every one of them, because that's just the way they are. Not only that, but black people cannot be racist. If you can think of a more racist belief than that I would be very surprised. Why do they believe this? Well, there's really no good reason, but it is something they just take as a fact with no actual justification. Again, these are educated intellectuals. Are you surprised that some people think that some social sciences (which often aren't science at all) and humanities are becoming a joke?
I found listening to an audiobook criticising these theories ("Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity - and Why This Harms Everybody" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay) quite depressing actually, because I value truth and support genuine progress, and I see these postmodernist ideas as being completely contrary to, not only their own stated aims, but also to the aims any reasonable person might have.
Because of the built-in mechanism postmodernist theory uses to protect itself, there is no way to contradict any of its ideas. In the same way that any evidence I show a flat Earth believer that the Earth isn't flat is seen as part of the conspiracy to support a spherical Earth, any evidence I present against postmodernism is seen as the dominant societal group (which I, quite incredibly, am seen as part of) protecting itself from criticism and deconstruction.
Here's another example of the absurd lack of rationality involved: they know racism exists because either a person will confirm it exists, or will reject it. But if they reject it that is because of their systemic privilege which itself is part of racism. No matter what you do, you cannot disprove their theories, at least using their own logic, so clearly we have to use real logic instead and completely reject every aspect of their ideology.
So let's be clear: the postmodernists in certain modern institutions are the enemy. The original version of postmodernism just noted the alleged existence of these societal mechanisms and commented on the absurdity of it (and of life in general). The evolved version of today involves many people actually taking this seriously, and they are determined to act on it, through dangerous ideas like cancellation and deconstruction.
All ideas, especially incredibly stupid ones, have their own natural life, and there are already signs that people are getting sick of "woke" extremism. It will reverse itself, but to help with accelerating the demise of these ideas we need to be aware of them. When you understand the philosophy behind them, they start making sense... in a very nonsensical way!
I often think to myself, what is it about the woke, politically correct, leftist fascists which annoys me the most? For example, what is it that triggers me to get involved in Facebook debates which, I suspect, are fairly pointless and won't change anyone's opinion?
If I had to narrow it down to one thing, I think it would be identity politics. Definitions of this vary somewhat, but my simplistic explanation is a belief system where people are judged primarily based on groups they belong to instead of who they are, or what they believe, or what they achieve as individuals.
Note that many of these groups - in fact the majority of them - aren't the type a person can join voluntarily. They are usually based on immutable characteristics, such as sex, age, or ethnicity.
Now this, to me, is clearly not only a stupid way, but also an unfair and dangerous way to behave. How can judging a person, based on something they cannot change, be fair and reasonable? Well, clearly, it can't.
But we increasingly see people being accepted for jobs based on these characteristics. In many countries it is illegal to have these types of requirements, but when they favour traditionally "repressed" minorities this is often overlooked, and even if the bias isn't overt it can still be there.
So a large company saying that they want to hire more women into senior roles, or another saying they want more people of colour in engineering is OK, but saying they want an old white man isn't. And when hiring is done in an unbiased way, if it leads to hiring a majority of those old white men, you can be sure some criticism will be forthcoming.
I very much believe in the primacy of the individual. I like many of the concepts emphasised by libertarians and followers of Ayn Rand's philosophical idea of Objectivism. Note that I am aware of the controversy around Rand, especially whether she was a genuine philosopher or not, but I am just interested in exploring ideas instead of worrying about who originated them, or how academically respected they are.
I found this quote from New Zealand's libertarian party (or the closest thing we have to one), Act. They said "a person should never need to pass an identity test to do their job." To many people this would be uncontroversial and, in fact, undeniable, but many others would disagree, saying that some groups in society deserve extra consideration due to factors which disadvantage them, for reasons beyond their control.
I would have two questions about this: first, are these people really disadvantaged by society, because it is often unclear where the fault lies; and second, even if there are systemic factors working against them, is it fair to favour them over another person who played no direct part in this process?
For example, many New Zealand organisations celebrate hiring more Maori instead of European New Zealanders, because there is a narrative that Maori are the victims of systemic racism. But is the lack of Maori in senior roles really the result of racism, or is it a cultural issue where that community favours formal education less? And even if it could be shown that racism does exist, does making a hiring decision based on that belief OK? Does the white European deserve to be denied a job they might be better at, just to correct a perceived imbalance. Should it be them who pays?
I think the answer to the second question is clearly no. If we concede that making decisions based on race is bad when it goes against the person in the "minority group" then surely making a race-based decision which favours that group must also be bad. Are they not examples of racism in both cases?
I also dislike news reports which celebrate a person's accomplishments based on their membership of a group. For example, with the headline "Kamala Harris makes history as first woman of color elected US vice president" I have to wonder why we are celebrating that simple fact instead of whether she is a good vice president. Many people would say that the evidence indicates she's a terrible VP, and some might extend this to calling her a complete idiot.
And that brings me to another point. People who criticise Harris are often accused of being sexist or racist, as if the fact that she is a black woman (but not very black, really) means she is beyond criticism. There would be no suggestion of this if Donald Trump was criticised for similar reasons. So can we not criticise a politician because of the group they belong to? This sounds both unfair and potentially undemocratic.
All of these issues can be avoided if we all just ignore identity or pretend we don't see it in the person, and judge them based on their abilities instead. The famous quote from Martin Luther King, "judge a man not by the color of his skin, but by the content of his character" summarises this idea well. But apparently the woke crowd like to praise people who worked for black equality, except when it doesn't suit their agenda.
Note also how sexist MLK was when he used the word "man" there; maybe it should have been "judge a person not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character". You can see how easy the identity game is to play if even a hero of the left can be criticised for failing to be "inclusive".
So, I say let's just treat people as individuals. Praising people simply because of the identity they have is unfair both to them, because it treats them as if they can only succeed based on their identity rather than their real worth, and on others, because they might do the same but get no recognition because they don't belong to one of those favoured groups.
When one group is favoured over another it also leads to resentment. I'm sure black people in the US were resentful when white people got jobs which they might have been able to do better. So why would we assume that doing the opposite is not also going to lead to disgruntlement which might result in negativity towards the person getting the special treatment, even though it isn't really their fault?
It's an apparently complex problem, but it has a simple solution: just treat people as individuals and not as representatives of groups which they are seen as belonging to. If a person is best for the job, ignore their gender, race, sexual preferences, etc, and hire them. If a person from a disadvantaged group does something wrong it's not racist, or sexist, or homophobic to say so, it's just stating something which would otherwise be accepted.
We're all individuals. We all belong to groups too, but I don't think that should be as important as it is to many today. We should all be able just to be ourselves without our group identity becoming a factor.
Being idealistic is fine. If you truly believe in something, it is important to pursue that belief even when there is significant resistance to it. This seems like a reasonable perspective, but there are two factors which need to be considered in this situation.
First, is the subject of the idealistic fervour rational, fair, and true?
For example, I would not approve of someone engaging in activism in order to promote their religion. If an Islamic activist wanted to make studying the Koran compulsory in New Zealand schools (don't laugh, the way things are here now with this government, it isn't impossible) I would not support that, no matter how committed the activist was to his objectives.
And second, is there any real chance of success from the activities the person is engaging in while pursuing those aims?
For example, if a person wanted to eliminate all misinformation on-line I would question how possible this is, and whether it is even a good idea anyway, given the difficulty in defining exactly what misinformation is, and the likely vigorous objections to that ideal which could easily turn bad for the person involved.
There's an old saying about this, that many people probably know. It is this: "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." - Reinhold Niebuhr
Obviously, as an atheist, I interpret the "God" part metaphorically and would say the serenity, courage, and wisdom has to come from within (now I'm sounding very Zen!) rather than from a deity, but the essential intent of the statement remains, even when that part is removed. Niebuhr was an American theologian, ethicist, and commentator on politics, and professor at Union Theological Seminary for more than 30 years, so the "God" component is not surprising.
The reason I mention this subject at all is because of a recent situation my friend Fred (not his real name) endured. He has been a rebel for years, and has found various ways to circumvent the bureaucratic rules at the organisation he works for, in order to work more efficiently, and to help his clients more quickly and thoroughly.
But the organisation has become more and more draconian, inflexible, and bureaucratic as the years have passed, and Fred has found himself more and more under threat from the management, and under more stress after being forced into roles which really shouldn't be part of his job. Fred is a geeky type person, who is most at home when tackling tricky technical problems, and he freely admits to not being organised enough to be good at the mundane yet convoluted administration tasks he was told he had to take on.
Unfortunately, Fred did not have the wisdom to know the difference between the things he could and couldn't change, and it eventually came to a point where he suffered from severe stress after being persecuted (as he saw it) by management, while not managing the administration tasks he was asked to perform well, leading to anxiety.
Some people might also claim that he failed on my first criterion too, in other words, was the idealistic path he was following rational? He claims that using his unofficial and informal approach he got a lot more work done, and a lot more people helped, than he ever could by following the rules, but others might suggest that the negatives of that approach would outweigh the positives.
But, as I said above, it eventually reached a point where the pressure became too much, so Fred decided a "reset" was necessary. He thinks of it as "Fred version 2.0"; the latest version with many changes over the previous one. Anyone who uses a computer knows that new versions of software are often less useful than older ones, at least initially, but sometimes change is forced rather than chosen.
So Fred now has the serenity to understand that there are things which he cannot fix. In no way is he saying that the bureaucrats were right, and he still thinks his older way of working was better, but his greater wisdom has told him that this is a battle he cannot win.
Because, in most workplaces, there is a huge power imbalance between the workers and the management. The people at the bottom of the hierarchy have to do the actual work but have very little say in how that is done, and have to justify any small divergence from the ordained path. The people at the top do nothing (arguably) but still get to say how other people should work, and have little need to justify anything.
But that is just the nature of large, bureaucratic organisations, which Fred should have already understood. If he chose to work in an environment like that there should have been no surprises when his attempts to forge his own path were opposed by the management.
In his defence, Fred has worked at the same organisation for many years, and initially there was a great deal of freedom to work in a way which suited the individual best; an attitude which has slowly changed over the years. So it is possible that Fred - like the frog in the pot of water which slowly gets hotter until it boils him alive - didn't notice the slow changes which eventually become so significant. Luckily he jumped out of the pot before the water really did start boiling!
There is both truth and delusion on both sides, of course. Many workplaces impose rules to control the staff who aren't self-motivated enough to get a fair amount of work done, but these rules are applied universally. So while they might force some less enthusiastic people to work to a reasonable level, they also de-motivate others and result in lesser levels of performance from them.
But that is just an apparently inevitable outcome for large organisations, and there really isn't anything that can be done about it, hence the need for humility in not trying to force that change.
Fred's advice in the end was to either find a job in a smaller company where excellence is actually celebrated, or to just accept the mediocrity necessary to fit in to a large organisation. Idealism has its place, but pragmatism is a more useful attribute to have in most situations we encounter in our everyday lives.
In the end, be courageous when you can, but also be wise, and accept the serenity necessary for self-preservation in those situations where mediocrity is celebrated.
My previous blog post "Some Controversial Views" has been deemed not controversial enough by several readers, so apparently I have to try harder to offend people. I don't go out of my way to write controversial stuff; I just write what I think, which is sometimes seen as controversial (as well as true, of course). So what could be more controversial than the subjects I covered in the last post: gay pride, abortion, trans rights, and indigenous culture?
Well, the suggestion has been made that I should cover the infiltration of indigenous cultural values and beliefs into academia. For various reasons - not the least of them being potential persecution by the bureaucracy for having contrary views - I would prefer to talk about this phenomenon in relation to the country in general, which includes what is happening in universities, but is not limited to that.
So, with the understanding that the following is not necessarily my view, but a perspective I think is worth considering, let's get started...
I'm writing from the perspective of a New Zealander, so I will be concentrating on how the imposition of elements of Maori (the original inhabitants of this country) culture is affecting our society. But this is a global trend, so similar issues affect other countries.
There are several areas where Maori culture affects modern society in general, including universities: language, political correctness, and indigenous perspectives being applied to traditionally Western areas of knowledge. I'll have a look at each of these and make a few comments from perspectives I have heard from both supporters and detractors of the new regime.
So first, language. There has been a recent trend to use Maori names for various organisations, to rename many places to their Maori names, and to use the Maori language more in general. This is inconvenient, and possibly significantly problematic, for many people, because very few New Zealanders have a thorough knowledge of that language. A lot of people have problems remembering the Maori names for government ministries and other organisations, for example.
One case of this is the New Zealand Transport Agency which is now usually called "Waka Kotahi" which seems to translate to "one car", although the word "waka" originally meant canoe, according to what I can establish. But I always thought this was the Ministry of Transport, which is actually "Te Manatu Waka" apparently. You can see how this becomes confusing. The Maori language has no words for many modern concepts and technologies, so it is unsuitable for many of the tasks it is asked to cover.
So what have we gained by applying confusing, largely irrelevant, names to organisations based on Western structures? It's pure political correctness, and it's annoying, a source of inefficiency, and potentially confusing.
A similar issue exists for common place names in this country. We often hear in weather reports, news, and other sources, the Maori names of places which have always been referred to with their English names in the past. Non-Maori speakers have to subconsciously try to remember which place is being referenced and, even if they can do the translation, they might lose track of the larger topic under discussion.
And then there is the habit of many in the media today of using Maori for quite significant sections of their reporting. A word here or there most people can cope with, but in general once large sections of a language unknown to them starts, they just stop listening. Many people refuse to even listen to programs or TV or radio channels which indulge in this habit.
But is there another side to this story? Is it reasonable to use a language which was the first one used in this country, pre-colonisation, and is an official language of New Zealand, and is still seen by many, especially Maori, as an important part of the national identity? Well, sure, I can appreciate that perspective, especially from an emotional angle, but we need to be more cognisant of the practicality of this, and decide on how far the use of the Maori language, which has very little practical applicability, should be taken.
And if people aren't familiar with the language, should they not learn more of it? This is one reason it is used more today: as a form of persuasion for learning. Well sure, if a person wants to do that, that's fine, but many people have neither the time nor interest in learning a language which has minimal use beyond understanding material being inflicted on them through a process which is little more than social engineering.
The second issue I listed above is "political correctness". This phrase is often used in a derogatory sense, but for the more woke elements of society it is just another way of saying to do the right thing. In other words, it really is doing what is correct in a political context. Of course, I am using it in the more negative way here!
There is little doubt that the PC elements in society, including most politicians, give Maori culture favourable treatment. A positive spin is applied to any events involving that culture, and a negative one to the dominant Western culture. For example, many people claim that the way Maori treat the environment is being portrayed in such a positive light is flawed at best. Many would claim that Maori did far more damage to the environment than the settlers did, in fact, and there is good evidence supporting this idea.
And any events from the past where Europeans acted unfairly or violently are emphasised, but far worse events involving Maori are ignored or excused. If we are going to hold cultures to account for their past misdeeds, should we not do it in an equitable way?
The final issue is indigenous perspectives being applied to traditionally Western areas of knowledge. There has been a certain amount of controversy over this recently, and it has become a fairly significant source of disagreement, as well as involving the usual attempted cancelling of people who refuse to accept the politically correct perspective.
Primarily, this involves the concept of "Maori science". Whether this is a problem or not partly depends on how precise your definition of the word "science" is, but I think it is fair to use the non-archaic use which is a systematic process to discover and validate new knowledge. Note that in this sense, it does not refer to a simple body of knowledge, but more to a formal and objective method to establish that information.
So, in the more general sense everyone has science, because every culture undoubtedly has a collection of knowledge which is acquired and maintained through social processes, like written or verbal histories, teaching, etc. But science in the true sense is more than that, and involves careful and systematic accumulation of knowledge which has been verified through processes such as double-blind experiments, peer review, and statistical analysis.
That makes science a far more exact term, and one which can really only be applied to the methods which primarily arose first from Greek philosophy, then became more formalised during the Enlightenment. Note that this means that very little, if any, real science comes from traditional knowledge. So from this perspective, there is no Maori science.
This was reinforced to me recently when a person I was debating recommended I look at the work of an esteemed Maori astronomer (which I assumed meant a person pursuing the science of astronomy). But when I looked at his work, it was really mythology, and contained nothing that I would call science. Note that I think there is nothing wrong with mythology, but please don't call it science!
But there is a more important aspect to this too, and an even better reason why "Maori science" just isn't a thing. Science is science. It is the same whatever its origin might be. So by adding "Maori" as an adjective modifying the noun, you either get something which should really just be called "science" or could be called "Maori knowledge" or "mythology".
Do we call the discoveries of Darwin "English science" or of Hubble "American science". Well, we might if we wanted to emphasise the country of origin of the scientist involved, but the actual process is the same and when we evaluate the value of a scientific discovery, the knowledge under discussion should be judged on its merits, not the cultural background of the person who made the discovery.
So I don't take "Maori science" seriously, because it is actually mythology (according to what I have seen anyway) in the same way as I don't take "Christian science" seriously, because it is actually theology. Of course, I take just plain old science done by Maori people or Christians seriously, but that usually isn't described as anything beyond just plain old vanilla science.
To summarise all of this, and to state my underlying philosophy on this topic: I want to ignore people's ethnicity when it isn't relevant. I want everyone to be treated the same, and that means no special privileges for either the dominant majority of people, or the allegedly oppressed minorities. I will celebrate excellent science done by a Maori person as much as anyone else, but diluting the prestige and effectiveness of a primarily Western construct, like science, by allowing scientifically illiterate material in, is going too far.
And using the Maori language is fine, and I really don't mind too much if a bit of it is used in news and other sources, but when it makes understanding the material impossible to anyone except fluent speakers, that is going too far.
Criticising the bad and celebrating the good aspects of a culture is fine, but do it evenly. If you want to criticise Western culture for using slaves in the past, then aslo criticise Maori culture for doing the same thing.
And if real science is done by a Maori person then I will acknowledge that as much as if it was done by anyone of any other culture, but don't ask me to pretend that myths are science, because that is unacceptable to me.
That's about as controversial as I can get on this subject, so I hope that makes those asking for a more extreme diatribe happy. If not, please add your own controversial opinions on the subject to the comments!
In the past, most people trusted experts. They would do what their doctor told them, believe what the news media said, and have some degree of trust in politicians and other leaders. I know that it isn't quite that simple, and that some degree of distrust has always existed, but it seems to me that trust in experts (which I will use as a generic term for these groups of people) isn't what it once was.
The question is why. I have thought about this quite a bit recently and I broadly blamed these professions: teachers, the media, and universities. Of course, politicians and managers are also a major source of problems, but that has always been the case, so I was more interested now in what has changed.
Since then I have further refined my theory and now primarily blame universities as the initial source of the problem, largely due to the invasion of postmodern or relativist thought there. Obviously the degree to which this has occurred varies greatly from one institution to another, amongst departments within the organisation, and between individuals as well, but I think it is a real trend.
In general, this started at American universities, where completely irrational ideologies have taken over to varying degrees, and America is the cultural leader in the Western world, so it is spreading to other countries as well. And amongst the departments within universities the humanities and social "sciences" are the most affected, which is a problem, but not necessarily a significant one since many people are suspicious of subjects like sociology, gender studies, and the like anyway. Unfortunately it is spreading to more important areas like the hard sciences as well, although to a lesser extent.
And the other groups I blamed above tend to have university training, so the problems I saw with teachers and the media, might originate in the education (or indoctrination) they received there. It's interesting that, in the past, journalists often didn't have university training and the media was far less biased. I can't necessarily prove a causative link there, but it is worth considering.
Of course, anyone is perfectly entitled to have any political or philosophical views they want, even if they make no sense and might be personally disadvantageous to themselves. But the problem comes when those views are inflicted on others with little or no balance, and that seems to be what is happening.
In some subject areas in US universities the staff are practically 100% from the left, which makes them more susceptible to this nonsense. To offer some balance, I think people from the right are also susceptible to dangerous and implausible views, but they aren't the source of the particular problem I'm discussing here.
So this phenomenon becomes self-propagating, because graduates from universities espousing this type of ideology are employed in influential jobs including as academics and teachers in other universities where the cycle can continue.
But how did it all start? Well, political and social trends tend to arise for indeterminate reasons and capture the attention of sections in society. As they take hold they are viewed as the "correct" way to think and there is subtle pressure to conform. Even in universities, genuine free thought is rare, and people often just latch on to the latest political trend and rarely question it, at least until the next one comes along.
The word "zeitgeist" refers to the general mood at a particular point in history, and this concept has been around for a significant period of time, so this is nothing new. It's just that the current derangement is particularly harmful because it specifically rejects the primacy, or even the existence, of objective truths.
The concept of there being no completely undeniable facts is not new. Descartes famously claimed that the only thing we know for sure is that we ourselves exist, and the rest could just be an illusion, but this solipsistic idea is pointless, and even if it is technically true, we all act as if it wasn't. I can't prove that a tall building, or the theory of gravity, really exist, but I still wouldn't jump off the top floor to test that. Even if I did, my resulting death could all be part of the illusion!
I do have to emphasise here that I don't object to people holding and discussing odd philosophical beliefs, and they have a perfect right to hold those. I'm sure they might object to the equivalent beliefs I hold, so I'm not saying they shouldn't have them. What I am saying is that we need more balance. If students are exposed to a particular ideology they should also hear the counter-ideologies to that so they understand the reality is more nuanced than they might superficially assume.
But many universities refuse to allow that. Not only are they stacked with staff with extreme leftist views, but they even refuse to allow external speakers in to offer alternatives. The cancelling of speakers from the right is a well established phenomenon around the world. And even speakers with ideologies often associated with university activism, such as feminism, are now being rejected if their ideology contradicts another one which is seen as having higher value, such as trans beliefs. I'm talking about the cancelling of TERFs here, if you didn't get that.
This has reached the extremes of refusing speakers the right to appear based on perceptions of who they are rather than any content of their actual subject. For example, controversial right-wing commentator Don Brash was refused speaking rights in a New Zealand university even though his subject was monetary policy and his time at the Reserve Bank rather than anything related to his activism around race issues here.
Whenever I see a refusal to engage in reasonable debate, or to even hear what an alternative opinion might be, I assume the person rejecting the alternative views is doing that because they know their own views are weak and difficult to defend. In other words, people are cancelled because they are right. And yes, I know absolute right and wrong don't exist according to these philosophical views, but consistency is not a strong point in these people's intellectual repertoire!
If there is one way to guarantee to stifle progress it is to refuse to engage in debate around the truth of existing beliefs and to consider alternatives. When a particular view becomes the only one which is considered appropriate or moral, it generally leads to intellectual stagnation. After all, in the past the "correct" view often included belief in the ethical superiority of slavery, or the divine right of kings, or the supremacy of a particular religion.
And remember that at the time, people would be "cancelled" for questioning these, usually in far more unpleasant ways than today, but we now don't in general believe them any more. All ideas should be open to question, and the correct way to counter a view is not to suppress it, it is to reject it through reasoned debate.
For example, if some neo-Nazis wanted to speak and I was in the audience, instead of stopping them I would just ask awkward questions, like: are they aware of the amazing contribution Jews have made to the world, especially in medicine and science? And I would then point out all the things we wouldn't have without that contribution, and invite them to stop using any technology invented by a Jew, like the Google search engine, or the VOIP technology used in computerised communications, or flexible stents, an important part of surgical procedures, or one of hundreds of other innovations.
That reaction might give them something genuine to think about, just like the KKK members in the US who have been deradicalised after speaking with an intelligent and reasonable black person. And that, I think, is far more likely to produce a change in attitude than just being told to shut up.
So it seems like the radical politically correct cancel culture will destroy itself in the end, because people can detect genuine weakness, especially when it is protected by a refusal to engage in anything which might require some justification. Ironically, having neo-Nazis speak at an institution might be a sign that the institution genuinely cares about fighting radical ideologies, instead of just having one of their own!
As a skeptic I am very aware of the classic informal logical fallacies. These are potential errors in reasoning which aren't strictly rules like there are in formal logic, but are guidelines for debating in a rational way. For example, a common fallacy of this type is the "ad hominem". This is where a person argues against a a person's character rather than what they're saying.
For example, If Hitler said tomorrow is Tuesday, you might say "it can't be, because I can't trust what Hitler says." Clearly, that is a problem, because it could easily be Tuesday, and there's no reason why Hitler should not know this. So saying "tomorrow can't be Tuesday because Hitler said it is" is a fallacy.
But what if Hitler said "We must exterminate the Jews, because they are evil." We know Hitler wants to use the Jews for his political purposes, and is a violent tyrant, so we might have very good reason to reject that statement (the bit about Jews being evil) just based on who said it. So in that case, we might say that we can reasonably use an ad hominem.
Another common fallacy is the "slippery slope" or "thin end of the wedge". These state that an initial, relatively mild action can be rejected because it will lead to far more harmful events once it escalates, as it inevitably will. But many benign actions never escalate to something harmful, and an action shouldn't normally be rejected because of that.
But if Hitler said "we will station a whole lot of panzers at the border with Poland, but don't worry, we won't invade." We could rightly say that no, the tanks being taken there is just the start of a slippery slope (or the thin end of the wedge), and they will inevitably be used in an invasion. We should stop this now. In this case a slippery slope is a fair argument.
So you can see that calling someone out on an informal logical fallacy is OK, but that type of fallacy, in itself, is not a reason to reject their opinion. There's even a fallacy which covers incorrectly using a fallacy. It's called the fallacy fallacy. So thin end of the wedge and slippery slope (which I will treat as being about the same) arguments are often correct, although it would be preferable to use different supporting logic.
Anyway, the thin end of the wedge I want to talk about here is the response to COVID. When this all began, a couple of years back, I noticed government (and other institutions) activities were relatively mild, but could easily escalate to something far more pernicious. It sounded like a slippery slope argument (and therefore probably a fallacy), but it really wasn't.
For example, we were told we would need a vaccination, but it would not be compulsory. Now we are being told to get our third, compulsory dose of the vaccine, in just a few months. I know that technically it isn't compulsory, but if you don't get vaccinated you can't really participate in society, so it might as well be. And where will this end? If you think three will be enough, you might be being naive. If you think vaccination won't be necessary for more, rather than less, events in the future, again you are probably being naive.
And what about masks? They started as any type of face covering being recommended for various situations. Then masks of some sort became mandatory in some situations, then more situations were added, now not only has it spread, but the type of mask you are required to use has become far more specific, and these are definitely compulsory.
In some organisations there are quite draconian rules in place for masks, including the recommendation to call security if a person fails to comply. Sounds like that "thin end" has got pretty thick quite quickly!
The reaction to alternative views has also escalated into the more extreme. Initially we were asked to be kind to everyone, and not judge non-mask wearers or the unvaccinated. Now people who don't follow the exact "guidelines" or even if they simply offer alternative opinions are ridiculed, silenced, and fired. In other words, cancel culture has been applied as a weapon against people who fail to fully comply with increasingly harsh rules.
There are even some individuals who think the idea of lockdowns could be extended to cover other controversial societal problems, for example climate change. Once an idea, no matter how problematic it is, gains some acceptance, it is very difficult to eliminate it from the set of tools various regimes may want to utilise.
We generally expect society to become more free over time, but recently the opposite seems to be happening. This is primarily because of two factors: the left becoming increasingly demanding in their actions, and COVID being used as a justification for removing freedoms. Some examples of the use of new hate speech laws are truly concerning.
Small changes have been sneaked in over time, often in response to events most people are quite horrified by, but that is really just an excuse to impose greater control over people's thoughts. For example, the Christchurch mosque shooting is being used as an excuse to impose tighter control over criticising religions here in New Zealand. I have a very good idea which religion it will be illegal to criticise too: the one which deserves the most criticism!
We need to be very aware of this problem. It's the old "frog in boiling water" problem; as the water temperature slowly increases the frog doesn't notice until he is boiled alive. Is that what we want? Sometimes the slope really is slippery!
One of my favourite aphorisms is this: "in theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice, they aren't." This has been attributed to Yogi Berra (I didn't make this up, he was a baseball player, apparently), Einstein, and Feynman, but pre-dates them all, and is credited to Benjamin Brewster by Quote Investigator. It can be applied to many different situations, especially where a person or group is suggesting a particular action based on what is best in theory, but where there is suspicion that the outcome from actual practice will be not quite so positive.
Of course, theory works extremely well in many situations and gives the correct results in practice, but these tend to be simpler examples where there is no influence from chaotic events. For example, theory can allow us to plot a course for a spacecraft to get to the Moon, but it doesn't allow us to predict with certainty the weather next week.
And in the social sciences (which are debatably not sciences at all) and the arts, things become even more uncertain. The outcomes of elections, the effects of different economic and political policies, and future societal trends are all impossible to predict with a high degree of accuracy.
So we should be very careful about applying ideas which seem great in theory, but have either not been tested or are found to be lacking in practice. The claim that something works well in theory should not be taken too seriously until some proper empirical testing can be done to see if the practice matches the theory.
OK, I think I have established the underlying idea of this post; it is now time to give the example of this effect I want to concentrate on in this post: socialism.
This political ideology has gained quite a lot of support recently, even in countries which traditionally rejected it, like the US. And why shouldn't we support it, because superficially at least, it seems to alleviate the negative aspects of capitalism.
We find that the rich are getting richer in relation to the poor in all capitalist contries and that is quite rightly seen as a problem. In theory socialism should fix this, because it takes control from the elite and hands it to the community as a whole.
We also find that environmental issues often arise from corporations following the need for more profit while ignoring the effects of their activities on the environment. After all, in pure capitalism, if there is no profit in keeping the environment in good condition why would they want to do anything about that?
There is merit in these criticisms of capitalism, and socialism appears to be an answer, but in practice if we look at countries which have attempted to implement socialism we see the exact opposite of what theory tells us. In the USSR, for example, the poor were much worse off than the majority of similar people in capitalist countries, and the environment was often sacrificed in an attempt to improve efficiency.
It seems that this is a classic case of practice not matching theory. Note that people who claim that all the failures of socialism were because it wasn't implemented correctly in that case are just proving my point, because the practice, in every case I know, never delivers what the theory promises.
More specifically, look at East and West Germany before the failure of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Was the Wall there to stop West Germans escaping to the East? I don't think so. It was people in the socialist East who wanted out. No matter what the negative aspects of the West's political and economic system were, it still looked a lot better than the East!
And since the reunification of Germany, have the principles in effect in the East been applied to the new structure, or has it more or less became just like the West was? Again, what actually happened in practice seems to indicate socialism wasn't a particularly attractive option.
Many esteemed groups are saying we should limit growth in an attempt to reduce climate change and other environmental problems, and again, this looks reasonable in theory. After all, if we limit growth we need less resources and put less stress on the environment, right? Well, no. That's right in theory, but highly doubtful in practice.
Environmentalism was invented in the Western world, and it only becomes practical when people already have a high standard of living. It may seem that burning fossil fuels is a bad idea, but compared with clearing forest for fuel, or burning far dirtier fuels, it isn't so bad. We can only fix the environment when people have a reasonable standard of living, and a good standard of living does seem associated with free-market, capitalist economies. So a case could be made to say that growth is necessary to improve the environment.
If we really want to make the world a better place we should ensure that everyone has access to a fair standard of living. To do that we need reliable energy sources, because that is where an efficient economy starts.
And the best source for energy at this stage of history is nuclear power. Again, nuclear power is being rejected because of ill-defined theoretical ideas. It is claimed to be dangerous, expensive, and not environmentally viable.
But the opposite is closer to the truth, because in practice we find nuclear is a very safe, efficient, and environmentally friendly technology. I have already covered the stats on this in a post titled "Give Nuclear Respect" from 2019-07-02, so I won't repeat them here, but basically the clearly established deaths from nuclear are far below any other form of energy production, even solar.
Of course, when nuclear goes wrong it can go wrong very spectacularly, but that very rarely happens, and when it has happened in the past it has been in older style facilities (Fukushima was designed in the 1960s) which were run incompetently (the Chernobyl disaster was caused by some fairly gross incompetence by the operators). And even when acknowledging the deaths from those accidents, nuclear is still far safer than anything else, especially coal power.
So in theory nuclear is bad, and that theory has been used in some countries (such as Germany) to reduce the number of nuclear plants, but the reality is far different.
Notice also, that theories, as well as being just theories, are also often warped by ideology. The ideas supporting the benefits of socialism are based on Marxist theory which is very much open to criticism. The same applies to the environmental impacts of capitalist growth and the dangers of nuclear power. They are all based on theories irredeemably warped by political ideologies, especially Marxism.
So, in summary, I say be cautious of theories in the area of politics, economics, and other non-physical sciences. All good science emphasises how theories should be tested empirically against reality. Some seem to have forgotten that step, and just stuck with the theory. Always be skeptical of theory without practice.
Mark Twain was a very accurate observer of the human condition, and a very witty commenter on it. I have many favourite quotes from him, but this one which I think is particularly relevant in the current political climate: "Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."
This relates very well to the current state of the world, where we are increasingly controlled by draconian laws, which are designed to stop extreme opinions and actions, but end up affecting more moderate and fair people just as much, or more.
Additionally, there is a lack of evenness in the execution of these laws and rules, because quite extreme opinions are permitted on one side, but the equivalent is severely penalised on the other. It's a bit like saying one group can't have steak (because of the babies), but for another group it's OK.
I agree there are few outright laws against free speech, although they undoubtedly exist. But it is really the subtle, and not so subtle, societal penalties against it which I am more concerned about. And if some current regimes are allowed to get away with it, new laws will undoubtedly be introduced in the future. Plans of that type are certainly being considered by the New Zealand government for example.
Many people might be tempted to think that I am just ranting on about my pet subject again, and that either it doesn't matter that much, or I am imagining a problem where none exists, but I (not surprisingly) disagree.
Free speech is arguably the most important right we have. Democracies depend so much on fair representation of all ideas, which leads to better informed voting. Without free speech anti-democratic actions, and others which harm society in various ways, cannot be criticised.
So if we can agree that it is important, let's look at the quote and analyse it. Basically it is saying that people who oppose free speech are quoting the harm it does in the extremes. For example, saying that there are only two genders might be seen as an attack against gender diverse people. But those people who find that idea problematic are the babies whose lack of robustness is used as an excuse to restrict the rest of us.
Just while we are on this subject: I think "gender" is a social construct, and an argument could be made to say that there are many genders. I think there are only two "normal" sexes though, although I recognise that there are abnormal situations where others might arise through genetic anomalies.
But although I think the idea that there are many genders is an argument which can quite rationally be made, I also think that people who oppose that idea also have a fair point. Like many debates of this sort, it gets back to the definition of the words.
And if we listened to each other, instead of having challenging opinions censored on-line and elsewhere, we might get a more fair idea of what debates of that type are really about. Both sides can be right to some degree. Both sides can be moral. And both sides are worth listening to.
So I'm sorry to have to re-visit this issue yet again, but this is all about political correctness. Any non-PC opinions have to be quickly eliminated by the forces of censorship. And unfortunately, this repressive attitude has often come from technology companies, such as Twitter and Facebook. It is deeply disappointing that the internet - which originally promised to be a place where everyone could offer an opinion - has become almost as repressive as traditional sources, such as the legacy media.
The next question must be this: why does one side of these debates insist of shutting down the other side, instead of engaging in debate with it, and (presumably) proving that other side is wrong?
Well, there is one obvious possible answer here: that the PC side know they can't show the other side is wrong, in most cases because they aren't. So in the example I gave above, if it was provable that there are a hundred (or whatever number is currently fashionable) genders, why no prove that to those who insist there are only two, and shut them down that way instead?
Well the answer must be that they can't, so they resort to censorship instead. Again note that I could go either way on this question (either 2 or 100 genders) depending on the definition of the words. But, either way, people should support one side or the other, not because it is politically correct thing to do, but because it is true!
But truth doesn't seem to matter that much any more, possibly due to the philosophical influence of relativism. If truth is really just an opinion, based on cultural preferences and traditions, then it actually doesn't matter what is true, because the existence of absolute truth is denied by this group.
Ironically, the only truth which appears to be genuinely based on cultural preferences here is the fact that truths are based on cultural preferences! If that isn't the ultimate circular argument, then I would be interested in hearing a better one.
So to sum up my position on this (and I'm sorry if you have heard this before), all forms of speech should be allowed and debated, as long as the speech doesn't involve a clear incitement to harm, or reveal any information that could be reasonably assumed to be private.
For example, I shouldn't be able to publish a person's bank password and invite people to steal all their money. But I should be able to say I think people who are biologically male but prefer to identify as female are actually male and shouldn't be able to compete in sporting competitions as a female.
And if a person does make a contentious statement like that, we shouldn't want to have the comment deleted, or have that person banned from the platform (Twitter or Facebook for example), or try to have them fired from their job, or abuse them as a homophobe. Instead, if you think they are wrong show them where, and if you can't do that, you really should start wondering why. Maybe it is you who is wrong.
Sure, we know that many babies can't chew steak, but the rest of us can, and why shouldn't we? If the babies can't stand us enjoying a steak, then I suggest they are the ones with the problem!
You have requested 20 entries and 20 have been displayed.
I do podcasts too!. You can listen to my latest podcast, here: OJB's Podcast 2024-04-30 The Fall of Rome: I'm afraid that we really might be seeing the demise of the greatest era in history..
BLOG SEARCH PAGE